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!

Contradiction on the Wiki for Zone of Influence Max Size?

TyranthraxusTyranthraxus Member
edited October 2021 in General Discussion
Will link it again at the bottom, for anyone who didn't catch the September Update video.

There was a thread just closed by another member who was asking about the size/max size of the Zones of Influence. However, the link provided by the Moderator in the thread's response provided information that looks contradictory to the sped-up simulation we got a look at of the spread of ZOI's, in the monthly update video - with the so-called "Node Simulator".

Now, the *Wiki* states "Up to one fifth of the world will be encompassed within the ZOI of a Metropolis". This is why I thought that a Metropolis's ZOI could only be spread to a maximum of 1/5 of the world. Seems reasonable - but then it kind of kills any reason/possibility to expand territory, at that point; All struggle would then be internal only to the ZOI, for which city was the Metropolis "in-charge of" the ZOI.

BUT - and I would have to suppose this is why @Odysscy was asking about it - we got a look at a simulator for the spread of the ZOI in the update video that looked quite different; It showed the spread as both capable of spreading across the continents and islands, and to sizes encompassing more than 1/5 of the world. The latter seems as though it would create the better potential for struggle; There'd still be capacity for ZOI's to expand and war against eachother, to capture and dominate more territory, around the world.

Which is correct? The information on Wiki has been there a long time, but was contradictory to what we saw in the video. It begins at the 28:00 mark, and we see it again a little in the rest of the video. Here it is, for anyone who didn't catch it live:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVWJQY8K8NY




«1

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Don't look at that simulation as being exactly how things will be.

    It is a simulation to test out many different versions, the one we saw was just one possible version.

    We don't even know what variables they are looking at, let alone the implications of those variables.

    This is why they spent actual minutes saying to not read too much in to the simulation before showing it. So... don't read too much in to it.
  • @Tyranthraxus

    look @ 40:07, they may be using similar colours but they are not necessarily the same node and vassals. 1/5 may refer more to the number of nodes rather than just an actual fifth of the world map size given as an approximation. You can also see that certain borders are thicker than others and can follow the hashed lines connecting the nodes in hierarchy. (amongst other reasons). The colours do tend to transition a bit based on topographical position.

    Something else to consider in another thread I mentioned about similar things is that nodes below level 3 can be side by side to one another. It's not until they are level 3 and up is when they start playing the vassal game for empires to form. There is probably more to it but that is the basics of it. The thicker boarders help determine the separate nodes and vassals from one another before primary vassals switch hands based on siege outcomes. As Nodes raise in level, they potentially could have larger allowances on their node influences for vassals and how those vassals were originally connected.

    There is a lot to take in with the simulation through speculation.
  • I was going to reply yesterday but got side tracked by a few things.
  • pyrealpyreal Member, Warrior of Old
    @Enigmatic Sage

    I thought nodes started limiting adjacent nodes at level 1?

    Node 1 and 2 start at L0.
    Node 2 reaches L1, preventing node 1 from progressing to L1.
    Node 2 reaches L2, allowing node 1 to progress to L1.

    I think Stephen reiterated that. First he says zero, then gets corrected and says 1. Can't remember if it was in the Sept video though.
  • It wasn't in the Sep video - but it's been a thing for awhile; Past a certain level, the neighboring Nodes will need to destroy another node to ensure that their own Node levels further.

    I'm just wondering what the game will be like once each server attains an equilibrium of 1/5 of the world, per Metropolis. Won't the mechanic need to function differently at that point, in order to ensure that constant struggle will continue?

    The Metropolises will drive the primary world Zones of Influence; Beyond that, are we only to fight internally, for control of 1/5 of the world? I'm still fine with such a mechanic - BUT! What will the conflict be, past that point? The simulator looked as though more than 1/5 of the world could be controlled by a single ZOI. Am I mis-interpreting this - or is this something that we can only expect an answer from in the Nodes 3 or 4 video?




  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    This make me wonder If a metropolis rises just outside the edge of the ZoI of an older metropolis - then their potential ZoIs can overlap between them - so will they be able to steal Vassal Nodes from the older metropolis?
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • pyreal wrote: »
    @Enigmatic Sage

    I thought nodes started limiting adjacent nodes at level 1?

    Node 1 and 2 start at L0.
    Node 2 reaches L1, preventing node 1 from progressing to L1.
    Node 2 reaches L2, allowing node 1 to progress to L1.

    I think Stephen reiterated that. First he says zero, then gets corrected and says 1. Can't remember if it was in the Sept video though.

    That is how many perceive it. Two nodes of the same level cannot exist beside each other but the simulation shows other wise. They would have coded that in for more accurate results for the simulator in my opinion if that was the case. The simulation clearly shows nodes below level 3 neighbouring each other regardless of how their empire structure together and boarders. But thinking about how nodes levels and the pace at which they can level it may have changed a bit. Nothing is for certain while a game is development and especially this early in development. Things could change as it's what best for the game at the end of the day.

    But @Tyranthraxus is correct in that you will want to continue to go to war with each other to expand your empire within allowances based on node levels and vassals. I do not see the world becoming truly balanced as there can only be 4 metropolises at a time? Once one is destroyed by whatever sieging node, their empire could crumble and considering how many wars could be going on simultaneously it could get broken up in relatively unpredictable way through players randomness which the simulation is trying to represent to some extent. You can see the nodes numbers rise and lower determining its power (not node level) but also showing how the continue to weaken through sieges and other factors. They will even flash red at times or their bars will go into the red during what could be a siege.

    Once that metropolis falls, the level 5 nodes race to become the next metropolis which could change empires, form new empires and could potentially cause empires to split depending on an assortment of variables and factors such as how they originally were connected, sieges breaking up empires and fractioning up the empire etc. Had to give a solid answer as the world map could be every changing when it comes to Zones of Influence.
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited October 2021
    @Enigmatic Sage 5 metros, not 4 :smile:

    As for the node thing, in A1 nodes locked adjacent nodes out already from lvl 1. In the simulation we saw, they didn't lock others out until lvl 3. They have said something about testing both systems, so maybe we'll see the "not lock until lvl 3" system in A2 for testing.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I mean...
    We probably need to know the details of what that map is simulating for the devs.
    It might be providing very useful data for them, despite not accurately showing the lock-outs.
  • pyrealpyreal Member, Warrior of Old
    Nerror wrote: »
    @Enigmatic Sage 5 metros, not 4 :smile:

    As for the node thing, in A1 nodes locked adjacent nodes out already from lvl 1. In the simulation we saw, they didn't lock others out until lvl 3. They have said something about testing both systems, so maybe we'll see the "not lock until lvl 3" system in A2 for testing.

    Not locking until L3 might lead to players being invested in a node before it gets locked, fueling conflict.
  • Nerror wrote: »
    @Enigmatic Sage 5 metros, not 4 :smile:

    As for the node thing, in A1 nodes locked adjacent nodes out already from lvl 1. In the simulation we saw, they didn't lock others out until lvl 3. They have said something about testing both systems, so maybe we'll see the "not lock until lvl 3" system in A2 for testing.

    5? my bad, thought only 4. oooh 4 castles is perhaps what I was thinking of. :smile:

    We'll have to see what they come up with and what would be more fun in terms of Verra developing and conflicting one another. They're just little camps and forts at that point IIRC.
    Dygz wrote: »
    I mean...
    We probably need to know the details of what that map is simulating for the devs.
    It might be providing very useful data for them, despite not accurately showing the lock-outs.

    it is a possibility! but who knows for sure except them. I just dont see why you'd not include something for more accurate results while having lockouts for 3+.
    pyreal wrote: »
    Nerror wrote: »
    @Enigmatic Sage 5 metros, not 4 :smile:

    As for the node thing, in A1 nodes locked adjacent nodes out already from lvl 1. In the simulation we saw, they didn't lock others out until lvl 3. They have said something about testing both systems, so maybe we'll see the "not lock until lvl 3" system in A2 for testing.

    Not locking until L3 might lead to players being invested in a node before it gets locked, fueling conflict.

    that is true too! Having nodes locking out early could allow nodes to be formed by driving populations to one another but could also deter players from becoming established in a zone as well. As I mentioned with how fast nodes could grow from 0-3 (being maybe less than a couple weeks as hinted at), it could be beneficial to have the world more conflict and taxing systems relatively earlier by giving those level 3 nodes vassals to tax and expand upon creating many small empires and then expand and change from there.
  • Aye - more development will have to come to pass, before we have a clear picture of the mechanic and any possible oddities that may arise.

    At the present time, it would appear that most conflict will become internal to a ZOI, once the world "fills out" with 5 of them; It would mostly be lesser/vassal Nodes trying to bring down and replace the existing Metropolis, at that point. Will the ZOI's re-shape, at such a time, or would the capital simply go to another Node in the same ZOI?

    It'll be great to know the details, as they become available!



  • Aye - more development will have to come to pass, before we have a clear picture of the mechanic and any possible oddities that may arise.

    At the present time, it would appear that most conflict will become internal to a ZOI, once the world "fills out" with 5 of them; It would mostly be lesser/vassal Nodes trying to bring down and replace the existing Metropolis, at that point. Will the ZOI's re-shape, at such a time, or would the capital simply go to another Node in the same ZOI?

    It'll be great to know the details, as they become available!




    You can see what happens in the simulation video when the metropolises rise and fall. As we know, the level 6 nodes goes back to 0, then that metropolis state is open for those who get the access to it first through node progression.
  • edited October 2021
    what I am curious about is when a node declares a siege on another node, is the any restrictions for who gets to sign up for it. Is it only for guilds? can anyone in its vassal network sign up for it considering it is gated pvp with a time and date for the event. Does this mean anyone can sign up for any siege even if they're from the other side of map as long as they can get there? What restrictions and rulesets are there? how does one become part of a node so they can participate? rules on that for new comers?
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Citizens are restricted.
    Open to everyone else, basically.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Citizens are restricted.
    Open to everyone else, basically.

    based on your vague response is it safe to assume that citizens will "belong" to certain nodes such as guild members and potentially others but allow any other players world wide to participate? So technically people could sign up and just throw the match because they want the other nodes to win? hmmm.... doesn't sound right. Sounds a bit broken and open for trolling. Hopefully they can allow features for invite only, zoi only, allied guilds only etc

  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I don't know what you mean by "throw the match".
    Nodes are not owned by guilds. Castles are owned by guilds.
    All kinds of reasons why people from all across the map might want to destroy a Node.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    I don't know what you mean by "throw the match".
    Nodes are not owned by guilds. Castles are owned by guilds.
    All kinds of reasons why people from all across the map might want to destroy a Node.

    Simple, people who want one side to lose can sign up for that side and just throw the siege scenario by whatever means.
  • edited October 2021
    and currently based on the information in the wiki,

    after a node partakes in a siege, they are protected temporarily from being sieged or sieging another node. Technically you could lock out your nodes from being attacked by throwing siege matches. They're gated due to the time and date variable with the barrier on the outside. Only those who are participating can pass through the barrier. Everyone else will die from the "fire wall" lets call it.

    Yes, regardless of certain specifics in restrictions for participants, this can still be done but to some degree you can screen out potential griefers better and/or shame allies whom have become turncoats per se.

    Who knows, maybe both sides of the siege are mutually exploiting this.
  • edited October 2021
    Now something interesting to mention,

    Imagine large gaming communities split their community into guilds and coordinated all their community to build near each other. Use this system to protect and sustain themselves until they got level 5's or a metropolis first, that would shift the game drastically as they'd be able to maintain their foot hold in the world of Verra for a very long time. Smaller communities do not really stand much of a chance other than to hope that they can build alliances and survive the sieges relatively fair. It's bound to happen with the games design to some extent but it can definitely be exploited to favour large communities especially early on in the servers life.

    It definitely has bad and good things about it before we even get into community organised raids, lol, player densities and server performances. Very interested to see how this game and design turn out. Now, lets say those gaming communities have thousands of members online relatively at the same time, they can essentially go around and do corruption raiding as well. a few hundred players not worried about corruption as they own the vassals and nodes and would have somewhere to retreat to once back in their nodes. It definitely has potential for a lot of grief. Sure, one can say other nodes and vassal could team up against them, but who's to say they're not going to do the same thing?

    It's definitely going to be an interesting game. Curious to how it all comes together in the long run.
    Who knows, the whole community could all coordinate to attack a pool of nodes at the same time and wipe out chunks of the map.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Simple, people who want one side to lose can sign up for that side and just throw the siege scenario by whatever means.
    You are describing expected gameplay. I don't understand why you are using the term "throw" or phrase "throw the match".
    We will have to see if mega-guilds can maintain sufficient diplomacy to maintain cohesion if they sub-guild.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Simple, people who want one side to lose can sign up for that side and just throw the siege scenario by whatever means.
    You are describing expected gameplay. I don't understand why you are using the term "throw" or phrase "throw the match".
    We will have to see if mega-guilds can maintain sufficient diplomacy to maintain cohesion if they sub-guild.

    sabotage? lol.

    I used the word throw because it's common terminology. Technically showing up naked to a siege is still throwing. Maybe both side as mentioned would just have a nice friendly duel to lock out their nodes to protect them. It depends on perspectives. Throw the match is an idiom.

    There are large gaming communities all part of the same discord. It wouldn't be difficult for them to communicate especially in 2021 onwards. A little planning between the hierarchy in the community, shouldn't be difficult for anyone. "Mega" communities could ruin some servers to an extent. Depending on guild size allowances and guilds per node, it wouldn't be hard to organise. Look at organised crime, many affiliations go by different names but are part of the same tangential syndicates. Exploits is part of gameplay I suppose even if they're frowned upon.

    So it's not really describing gameplay per se but more of how gameplay can be exploited and manipulated around the games design. It's not like everyone has to be online to declare the siege.

  • Imagine the griefing, lol.

    You declare siege on a node, next thing you know you and all your surrounding nodes have a siege coming up around the same date because that node you declared a siege on was part of a mega community.
    Definitely going to be interesting.
  • I'll give a few examples for the idiom "throw the match"

    Sign up for the declared gated pvp scenario known as a node siege and...

    - show up and not wear gear
    - pretend to participate
    - do the bare minimum
    - play super bad so you cater to losing

    Exploit examples for sieging could be:

    - the two nodes know each other and just have a fun naked friendly skirmish without damaging the node
    - several nodes rotate sieges to lock each other out of conflict to survive another week
    - protect their nodes from being destroyed by "throwing" the match. If the community is super rich in the game, it wont be hard to waste material to protect their more valued nodes.

    Mega communities could be part of every server, who knows how many there will there. Maybe they wont even attack each other. Destroying their metropolis may not slow them down. It's just a crown for them. They'll know who attacked them. They can easily retaliate is mass node sieges simultaneously to regions of the map.

    It's not hard to theory craft this. :wink:
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited October 2021
    Throw the match is an idiom that does not apply to Sieges.

    I think you don't know how Sieges work, but...
    Sure you can think up all manner of crazy what ifs - doesn't mean any of them are likely to ever occur.
  • https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Sieges
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges

    The node sieges take place in the open world but due to performance limitations and outside interference they announced that there would be a barrier going up to phase the participants in and out like an instance. Nothing against their teams skill but I doubt they'll be able to handle 1000's of players showing up for an open world node siege event. If they can, that'd be awesome! :smile: from what I gathered, it wont be much different than the limitations of a castle siege scenario considers player volume, siege destruction, VFX polygon limitations etc

    Nodes sieges are objective based, server prime time window for dates and time. node sieges can be destroyed at level 3+.

    Can be declared by any player, cannot be declared within 21 days of node advancing, participants can sign up for the node if they meet the criteria (individuals and guilds), nodes are locked from transporting goods once declared, the level of the node after a siege can determine how many days before it can be declared for/against. Village 20 days, town 30, city 40, metropolis 50 days,

    Nope... doesn't state anything for people "throwing the match" to exploit game mechanics for survivability.

    Judging from how many days it could take a node to level up throughout the course of the months progression and then the grace period, it could be well over a month or two for some nodes before declarations are allowed, then depending on the level of the node and the defender winning the "thrown" siege event, it could be another 20-50 days added on to that. That doesn't mean all its low level vassals couldn't still be organised to declare sieges at the same time to wipe out pools of other nodes. If you destroy their pool of vassals, the prime node gets a lot less tax money.


  • I wouldn't doubt the "what ifs" that gamers and communities are capable of planning. Chances are, there are many in the community whom are already aware of this and could have already planned for it as they develop alliances for when the game launches.

    Gamers like to win, even if it means exploiting some mechanics for survivability. After all, it's about having the strongest empires to survive, politics for alliances/wars/resources etc.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Not wearing gear at a Siege is the polar opposite of winning.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Not wearing gear at a Siege is the polar opposite of winning.

    lots of ways to throw the match as the idiom goes. Maybe the goal isn't to win as an attacker which I have gone over several times :smile: It's a way to lock out your node from being attacked for x amount of days by exploiting the mechanic in game design.
  • there is no death penalties in sieges, they dont have to not wear gear. It was just an example of how certain individuals could also sign for another factions conflict to aid them in losing rather than winning.
    Sabotage I believe we discussed? Lot's of way to exploit it.
Sign In or Register to comment.