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
Trade agreements and node cultures.
Nerror
Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
Something new I learned today is that trade agreements between nodes are affected by the culture/race of those nodes. It's not only node type and buildings and biome and such.
Go to around 43:17 of this video:
https://youtu.be/QRETPXuUEJs?t=2597
As far as we currently know, once a node reaches Metropolis the node culture is locked into place. In a sense the same is true for all lvl 5 vassal nodes under the Metropolis, and so forth down the vassal chain, until the Metropolis or parent node is destroyed.
The upside to this static system is that trade agreement are more stable. You know what you are getting in the future, and only a successful node siege can change that, assuming both mayors want to keep the trade agreement. The downside is also that it is static and a bit boring, and I believe less healthy for the longevity of the game.
Personally I would like to see dynamic changes to the culture/race of a node, coinciding with the monthly mayoral changes. Just like when a node levels up, I would like to see the node culture change depending on which race has provided the most XP during that month.
The upside to this is a much more dynamic and living world, and one where the racial composition of one node suddenly becomes a point of concern for other nodes, creating more tension points and options for node politics, which I think is a good thing. It opens up for new benefits, instead of everything being so locked in place.
One issue that needs to be solved is in-node player housing. I think the system right now is that the architecture of the player houses change with the node culture when it levels up, without the players having a direct say in the matter. I don't like that system. I think at each stage of advancement, the players should get to choose to stick with the old style, or change to whatever new style the node changes to. I care much less about the overall aesthetic of a node than I do about player choice and agency in this matter.
In the same vein, if Intrepid implements dynamically changing node architecture and culture every month, I think players should be able to keep their current architectural style of in-node housing, or change to the new one as they see fit.
Go to around 43:17 of this video:
https://youtu.be/QRETPXuUEJs?t=2597
.. and the abilities and accessibilities of the citizens within those nodes, to certain items and/or crafting materials, or crafting times or blueprints that you might have, or available quests or rewards, all of those get influenced by the types of trade agreements that you have, the culture of the other node that you have the trade agreement with,...
As far as we currently know, once a node reaches Metropolis the node culture is locked into place. In a sense the same is true for all lvl 5 vassal nodes under the Metropolis, and so forth down the vassal chain, until the Metropolis or parent node is destroyed.
The upside to this static system is that trade agreement are more stable. You know what you are getting in the future, and only a successful node siege can change that, assuming both mayors want to keep the trade agreement. The downside is also that it is static and a bit boring, and I believe less healthy for the longevity of the game.
Personally I would like to see dynamic changes to the culture/race of a node, coinciding with the monthly mayoral changes. Just like when a node levels up, I would like to see the node culture change depending on which race has provided the most XP during that month.
The upside to this is a much more dynamic and living world, and one where the racial composition of one node suddenly becomes a point of concern for other nodes, creating more tension points and options for node politics, which I think is a good thing. It opens up for new benefits, instead of everything being so locked in place.
One issue that needs to be solved is in-node player housing. I think the system right now is that the architecture of the player houses change with the node culture when it levels up, without the players having a direct say in the matter. I don't like that system. I think at each stage of advancement, the players should get to choose to stick with the old style, or change to whatever new style the node changes to. I care much less about the overall aesthetic of a node than I do about player choice and agency in this matter.
In the same vein, if Intrepid implements dynamically changing node architecture and culture every month, I think players should be able to keep their current architectural style of in-node housing, or change to the new one as they see fit.
1
Comments
Way too much. The racial appearance of the node has nothing to do with what you claimed.
What he meant by "culture" was, what raw materials the citizens of the node peddle, since not all materials can be found in every area of the world map.
The culture is simply the markets of the node.
Source?
Or if you prefer it straight from Intrepid: https://ashesofcreation.com/news/2019-03-26-know-your-nodes-advance-and-destroy
Also, a lot of these ideas seem good only from a civ game perspective. Like how the hell does a single player in an mmo (that's not alt-friendly) impact the racial makeup of the node? It's not possible therefore making it a mechanic is a waste of time and resources. These things are a bit too meta and node mayors will still be mmo players and should not suddenly start playing a civ game full time.
I literally just proved it with quotes and references.
Straight from Steven's mouth in that video, and from his article on nodes that I also linked. The terminology match in both the video and the node article. There is really no room for misinterpretation there.
A single players impact isn't huge no. The node style and culture for a given stage is based on ALL players that contributed XP to the node. If you want that system to change, start lobbying for that I guess.
I would guess that the two dwarf races favor each other, as do the other pairs of races. Are all hostile to the Tulnar? Is anyone favorably inclined towards the orcs?
Next, what do you speculate would be the impact on trade routes, were this to prove true? Would routes between favorably inclined cultures simply be more profitable, or might there be other perks?
? What? I am saying the system is already good, what YOU are proposing is to change the race that determines architecture and culture by XP. I'm trying to say this is entirely a passive system that no individual can control. Having the racial culture change removes the need for further trade agreements and politics with other nodes (which is much more active and can actually be engaged by players to pursue a desired outcome).
The current system is also an XP based system. The difference between the current system and the one I proposed is that under the current system the node changes race/culture only when the node advances a level, based on which race provided the most XP to the node. Meaning a kaelar metropolis will never change even if all the old citizens leave and only dünir join. My proposal is to make that a monthly check instead and change it based on whichever race provided the most XP to the node during that month.
All good questions!
As for speculation on the impact a culture has on a trade route, my initial thought was along the lines of available quests and/or crafting blueprints. It could also be resources, but I think that is less likely to be culturally based and more likely to be based on the biome the node is in.
These benefits apply to citizens of the dominant culture but they also apply to mechanics of the node and can also be of benefit to members of other races.[15]
There is an attrition mechanic that affects experience and influence to curb a single race from dominating the entire world.[16]
There is an attrition and that attrition on experience and influence is heightened based on the performance of the race in the world. So if all these nodes are Orc nodes then their attrition rate is very high to compete with the cultural establishment of new nodes because they have more influence in the world and a popular opinion is against them in their outlying regions that they do not have influence in.[16] – Steven Sharif
I can't speak for other people obviously, but personally I am just going by the words of Steven and Jeff